Oh yeah. Coming from you and what's-her-name, that means quite a bit to me. I'll have to take a lot of sedatives to sleep tonight, and may be in therapy for weeks now. Thanks for ruining my day.

Like I said, I recanted my statement on several occasions — several recently enough in the past few weeks, in addition to stating that I wouldn't be surprised to see him soften his position on same-sex marriage. You see, unlike you, he's a man that listens to others and is not afraid to admit when he's going down the wrong path.

"Most of us" here have done the same at one time or another. Still waiting for you to get the memo, though. But that's ok, bubelah, you keep harping away on old news and looking for your little "wins". That's your "depth", little boy, or the lack thereof.

I want you to pay special attention to the date on that post. Five — that's cinco, fivaroony, a fin — months ago that I indicated a change in my opinion. And I couldn't even find the thread that preceded it where I said in response to your suggestion that Obama is homophobic, "...it appears that he is..." But that thread's gotta be even older than five months. That's how long you've been harping on a comment that no one else but you has ever remarked on. And I can count on you dredging this up at least once a month (yeah, I found some of those in my search, since I had to go so far back).

Obsessive compulsion like that should be treated. Soon. And don't talk to me about arguing with the big boys when tired, meaningless crap like this is the best you've got. Depth? When's your birthday, km. I'm gonna send you a pair of water wings. Hot pink ones.

That's beside the point of wether or not the decision in Vermont would "make a difference" in regards same-sex marriage rights in the US ...

Regardless:

Quote:

Gay's aren't getting equal rights - when are they going to be allowed into women's associations?

Unless you're claiming a heterosexual man would have no problem gaining admission to such an organization, I don't really see the relevance of your question to the issue of equality under the law based on sexual orientation ...

Quote:

Right now you have to be a woman - that's completely unfair.

Not if you're a lesbian woman ...

See? Doesn't really have anything to do with sexual orientation ...

[edit]

Ah, I see below you have decided to take my comments completely out of context to this thread and now apparently wish to discuss discrimination of any sort. That does clear things up a bit. Carry on ...

Given this entire thread has been about civil marriage and how that institution should or should not be made available to gay/lesbian couples, I'm pretty sure you have taken what I've said out of that context entirely ...

As to this particular post, though:

--> Generally <-- I oppose discrimination against any minority group in regards business, public policy or publicly-funded entities/institutions ...

Back to the thread:

The institution of religious marriage is a private affair and even though I may or my not personally disagree with restrictions a religion may want to impose on their own ceremonies and beliefs, they certainly have the right to do so ...

The institution of civil marriage, though, is entirely in the public realm -- and I do take issue with prohibiting access to the rights and benefits associated with civil marriage from those who, absent their filling an unpopular but perfectly legal role in society, would otherwise be able to enjoy them ...

Ah, I see below you have decided to take my comments completely out of context to this thread and now apparently wish to discuss discrimination of any sort. That does clear things up a bit. Carry on ...

hehe, we've got another party going on today so I'll have come back at ya a bit later... Oh! I don't agree with anything in any of your last three posts but I might have to do isolated raids on different bits of 'em instead of trying to clear it all up in one go.

The institution of religious marriage is a private affair... The institution of civil marriage, though, is entirely in the public realm...

Makes no difference... the State has the right to prohibit discrimination in a private or public context.

Quote:

... I do take issue with prohibiting access to the rights and benefits associated with civil marriage from those who, absent their filling an unpopular but perfectly legal role in society, would otherwise be able to enjoy them

You're singling out civil marriage. I'm including clubs and associations - one justifiable discrimination is as good as another. Why is only one man allowed in the Davis Cup mixed doubles? I'll tell you why - because second males are prohibited access to the rights and benefits associated with the mixed doubles.

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.